Mormon Temple Wedding Changes? Say Hello to the Rest of the World, America

For years, many have wondered why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not allow part-member families to hold a civil wedding and then permit the bride and groom to attend the temple immediately thereafter to get sealed. This practice is commonplace throughout the world because in most countries, the Church lacks civil authority to perform marriages.

However, the United States and a few other countries have a different arrangement, one where the Church has been granted authority to perform civil ceremonies in conjunction with the temple sealing. A one-stop shop for civil and eternal marriage. It’s nice. It certainly puts lots of emphasis on the day at the temple itself. And it’s also a perk available to a minority of Church members.

The past few months have seen the rumor/leak mill discuss whether the Church would change its policy to allow part- or non-member families the opportunity to see the actual, legal wedding. For many Latter-day Saints, denying their loved ones access to their wedding has been painful. For others in a similar situation, the pain and awkwardness have not been an issue. Every situation is different, to be sure. It’s none of our places to assume one way is better than another. For every, “My family understands why they can’t go in the temple, and they appreciate that this is so important to me,” there’s a, “My parents have been bitter for years that they couldn’t see my wedding.”

However, it appears that this past weekend, in some temple training meetings, workers were allegedly informed that a change is, indeed, on the way, and in the United States, prospective spouses will need to be married civilly (at a courthouse or wherever) before heading to the temple for their sealing, requiring them to present their marriage certificate (not just a provisional, to-be-signed license) at the temple office.

To be clear, in the event this does indeed transpire, for couples wishing for the one-stop-shop, that would go out the window. Civil-then-temple would be the only recourse. It’s likely that if this is the case, then the process would surely follow what is done in other countries, allowing couples a window of time, based on proximity to a temple, to go and get the sealing done. If that window is missed, the usual year-long waiting period would presumably take effect.

And on a related noted, there’s a chance that bishops would no longer be allowed to perform civil ceremonies (though there’s some room to dispute this given the language around for-profit or non-profit clergy in evolving US law), nor would civil ceremonies be allowed on Church property (more likely; receptions are fine, just not the actual ceremony).

This is a welcome change for many if frustrating for some, and if it is truly coming, it is likely for two reasons:

Simple compassion or rethinking of the status quo. The Church feels it’s fine to let civil weddings happen before the sealing. No harm, no foul. Everyone wins.

Or more likely:

The battle for traditional marriage/for marriage equality (we’re covering our bias bases) will be decided in favor of the latter, and more sooner than later. While many of the fears of gay marriage opponents will not materialize, it’s a likely scenario that the Church refuses to recognize gay marriage and is thus no longer able to perform marriages under the law. So the only marriages the Church will perform thereafter are strictly religious ones that have nothing to do with state institutions.

Whether it’s out of expediency or clemency, the change, if announced, will allegedly take place sometime near the end of 2014 or the beginning of 2015.

To reiterate:

Actual, legal weddings will take place at civil institutions, not at the temple. This applies to everyone, even to multi-generational Mormon families with nary a card-lacker among them.

Temple sealings will not be recognized as a civil wedding under the law in the eyes of the state, at least not in the future. The Church could implement this policy while still retaining its ability to perform civil ceremonies, but better to be ahead of the change than to be forced to react to it.

Of course, none of this is official, and we are only working with the sources we have, so don’t hold our feet to the fire if something changes. We could just as well find out all of this is wrong wrong wrong, though even if these leaks are factually dubious, a change of this nature is likely inevitable, given the current political climate in the United States. Again, repeat: THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT. We are merely conveying what has been shared. We are prophesying of nothing nor claiming to speak for the Church. We love the Church. Let’s make sure that’s clear.

What do you think about this potential seismic shift in the way temple weddings are conducted?

*Update – Church spokeshuman Dale Jones says that they are “unaware of any meetings where changes to temple marriage policies have been discussed.” This could be a definitive answer that no, nothing is happening, but it also just says they are “unaware.” While Church Public Affairs has been clear that it certainly does coordinate its remarks with the Brethren, this does not appear to be a statement that rules out the change entirely.

About Geoff Openshaw

There are only two video games that, for me, can actually result in absurd quantities of time wasted: Civilization V and Roller Coaster Tycoon. I also weep over the paucity of good Mexican food in the DC area, where I live with my dreamy wife.

Wow. I can’t even express how excited I am by this announcement. I wish, too, that it is a change sparked by simple compassion, but the second explanation is indeed much more likely.

Traci Hare

A friend of mine is getting married civilly late December because of the latter reason (bitter family) and I really hope the church changes their in January so she doesn’t have to wait until next December to get sealed!

MsDinoGal

She shouldn’t have to wait anyway. As long as they keep the Law of Chastity within their civil marriage, they will still be worthy to attend the temple and be sealed.

LB35

What is your source?
If it is true, I like the decision because of all the needless pain that has been caused by the current policy. But I don’t see how legalizing gay marriage requires any church to perform them anymore than any doctor can be forced to perform an abortion or risk losing his medical license. Equal protection and right of association cut both ways. If others want to perform gay marriages, fine by me (think 11th Article of Faith). But if we don’t want to perform gay marriages, we shouldn’t be forced to and the Church would fight that all the way to the Supreme Court. I have always thought the argument that a church would be forced to perform a gay marriage on demand if it was legalized was just a scare tactic by the ultra right wing types, and I still do.
But I am a bit skeptical about this without a source identified. The Church is very tight-lipped about any announcement. (I was surprised several months ago when a spokesperson acknowledged that the policy was being discussed.) Whenever policy changes have been announced in the past, they are put into effect immediately, so I am a bit skeptical still.

Tevya Washburn

It’s already starting to happen: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/ I think the church just wants to avoid even having to go to court. With the way these State cases have gone, they could potentially be forced to perform weddings (possibly even in temples), before it gets to SCOTUS. They just want to entirely separate the civil and the spiritual weddings, so that there’s no chance of that ever happening, or even going to court. That’s the way it’s done in Europe and elsewhere outside the US.

Matt Peterson

The Idaho case does not involve a church. It is *not* starting to happen. Gays have only recently been given the same protection given to religions, the elderly, and other minority groups.

Where it was previously illegal for businesses to discriminate against, for example, African Americans it is now also illegal to discriminate against gays. It remains completely within the rights of any actual church to refuse to marry gays, or even African Americans for that matter.

Tevya Washburn

They are ordained ministers, and other churches have been labeled “for profit” because the minister gets paid based on offerings of their congregations. As long as marriage performed by them is a legal ceremony, it could be construed as a public service and therefore LDS Bishops could be forced to perform Gay weddings in LDS churches, and potentially sealers in Temples. You can say it’s “not” starting. But I’m about 99% sure the church is doing this to avoid ever even getting anywhere near any of this. I won’t be a bit surprised if they even stop having Bishops perform civil weddings. Elder Oaks has expressed a lot of concern over the way things are going legally, for churches. I’m sure the rest respect and follow his opinion on the matter.

Matt Peterson

Having professional clergy does not turn a church into a for-profit entity. *Most* churches in the US have professional clergy but that doesn’t negate the discretion given to churches to choose who they will marry.

The fact that the Idaho case involves ordained ministers is incidental. What matters is that they operate their wedding chapel literally as a business. If they reincorporate as a religion then they won’t have any legal problems, though it may affect their business aspirations depending on the specific nature of their business/religion. For instance, if they used their business to campaign for local politicians they wouldn’t be able to do that any more if incorporated as a religion.

It’s plausible that at some point in the future that because marriages are also a civil procedure that all agents performing that procedure will be required to accommodate anyone who desires it, but it’s not likely in the foreseeable future. Anti-miscegenation laws were found to be unconstitutional back in 1967 but it is *still* legal for a church to refuse to marry a mixed race couple if they want to. A for-profit wedding chapel however could not legally refuse service a mixed race couple

Even if it’s a real risk, there’s no need to pull back now, well in advance of any actual legal action on that front. I think it’s more likely that if this happens that the church is doing it either a) out of sympathy for the non-member family and friends who have been unable to attend temple weddings and/or b) to put some symbolic distance between temple sealing and civil marriage now that the latter is no longer a strictly heterosexual construct.

Kat

It will never happen in the temple. You have to have a recommend to enter the temple. A gay couple would never be able to get the recommend. The gay lifestyle is not part of the LDS church. I do fear they will for the Bishops to performs gay marriages in the church houses and I do not agree with that. Take it to the highest court! Fight it!

joseph peterson

As a side note, it is not doctrine to merely follow the *opinions* of church authorities, even if we respect them. Opinions are just that. And prophets and regular folk alike have them. Knowing and discerning between opinions and apostolic counsel…well, use the Holy Ghost brother! #PersonalRevelation #Stillactuallyathing

gas

I agree, where is your (the author’s) TRUTHFUL ACCURATE source? (or sources??)
You have none.

Who reveals sources? It said right there that this occurred during training meetings for temple workers.

LB35

I remember during the hunt for the Boston Marathon bomber that reporters were citing an unnamed source at the Boston Police Dept. that they were on a lead, had a suspect or something. Turned out they had nothing, the “sources” were full of it. People close to something might tell you anything to make themselves feel important. If they are not willing to give their name to the public, they might be full of crap. People close to the inner workings of the Church are very tight lipped. The SL Tribune is reporting that a Church spokesperson issued a statement denying this. I am hopeful that it is true, but skeptical without a source named.

Church PR guy Dale Jones said, “…we are unaware of any meetings where changes to temple marriage policies have been discussed.”

That’s not a denial. It’s a dismissal. No one on the inside has any reason to corroborate the story.

And of course, we hope we’ve been clear that this could all wind up not being the case, but this does come from a few independent sources. Only time will tell what is reality.

LB35

Introducing a major policy change by talking about it in a training meeting just doesn’t seem to be the way the church I belong to operates. When the age requirement for missionaries was changed, nobody was leaking anything to the press. It was announced for everyone in Conference. Mormon leaders have a vow of silence just like other ministers. If something were being discussed in a training meeting, those temple presidents or temple workers would be told not to say anything about it.

Being asked not to say anything and taking a vow of silence are two different things. This has nothing to do with the sacred things of the temple or someone’s personal life, so I wouldn’t put it past people to talk.

LB35

Anne F, Having been part of a stake presidency I was involved in several disciplinary councils, proposed ward boundary changes (including some that never happened), possible bishopric changes etc. All of it gets treated as a vow of silence, just like a person confessing to the bishop. The stake president would often tell us not to say anything about these things to anyone, including our wives. If it was at a training meeting for new temple presidents, like one person said, I would expect the same level of silence. I think someone heard a general authority say this could happen someday, and then went and said something to someone else. Or maybe some people who want the 1 year waiting period policy changed decided to see if they could force an answer by starting a rumor that sounds credible. I hope the 1 year wait policy is changed because of the pain I have seen some coverts and their parents go through when long-time members demand to “do things the right way”. But I am skeptical of these reports.

LB35

But Church PR people run every release by a member of the 12 or 1st Pres. before it is released (they said that is how they operate earlier this year). Since all policy decisions are made unanimously by the entire 12 and 1st Pres., that apostle would know if it is true or not. The statement kills the story in my mind. I hope the policy changes, but I would expect an announcement to come in the usual way, not through leaked sources. Still skeptical, but hopeful.

Natalie

Any temple worker who attends a training meeting regarding “new temple policy” and then turns around and blabs it to an outside source, is, at the very least, a joke.

Which is how I’m choosing to view this article.

Brock

This makes so much sense with the changes to the law that are coming and the current political stances (ie. ordained ministers are required to perform gay marriages or go to jail and get stripped of your marriage authority).

AussieRagdoll

Only when they are operating a for profit ‘Wedding Chapel’ which this couple are doing, just like in Las Vegas. This pair of ‘Reverends’ are not performing weddings in their Church. They are operating a business. This is a business issue, not a religious issue.

SP

Actually, in other countries they have to. And since when do you go to jail for refusing business to someone, even discrimination? You can be sued, but since when do you go to jail?

Brock

Actually this IS very much a religious issue. The laws at hand will require all who perform any weddings at all to perform all weddings equally, creating an issues when those that do not believe in Same Sex Marriage that will be required to perform same sex marriages under an “equality clause.” So by not performing marriages like they do today, the LDS church will not have to perform any Same Sex Marriages, which are an abomination in the sight of God per LDS beliefs.

Matt Peterson

Just one minor quibble – It’s not likely that churches will be required to perform same-sex marriages any time in the near future. The cases where people have been compelled to provide services to same-sex couples have involved for-profit businesses. This includes the wedding chapel in Idaho that’s been in the news.

It has always been legal for churches to decide who they will marry and even today a church could refuse to marry, for instance, a mixed-race or mixed-faith couple with no legal repercussions. There’s no reason to think that SSM would change that broad discretion.

Long term, sure I guess anything could happen but it’s not a clear impending risk.

Zach Jacob

Have you seen the case in Idaho? It’s happening already. (Or trying to. I imagine the Idaho case is going to be tossed, but who knows with judges these days.)

Matt Peterson

Yes, I have seen it. I specifically referred to it in the post that you replied to. The Idaho case does not involve a church. It is a private, for-profit business. They *sell* marriage services.

leximagnusson

If the church can deny people from the temple for drinking tea, do you really think they won’t be able to deny gay people?

Guest

Yes. The reason we no longer have polygamous marriages is because it was made illegal. It was either that or the temples would have been seized by The State. They could have done it then, they can, and will, do it now. And they CAN do it, because We The People won’t stand up against it.

We don’t have polygamous marriages because the Lord put an end to it. Various other religions (not just LDS-splinter groups) and secular polygamous partnerships have found ways to be involved in multiple marriage arrangements without being harassed by government officials, and when the government has intervened in polygamous arrangements between consenting adults, public opinion has generally sided with the polygamous families, even when people don’t personally agree with the idea of polygamy. (When kids are being forced into it, that is another matter.) We don’t NEED to have civil approval for such things. For instance, only one couple could be “officially” married while the rest were sealed religiously. But that is not the case. If the Lord still wanted his people to have polygamous marriages, we would.

Cmbtvet

Check your history not just church history. The only reason the church changed its stance was the government threatened with imprisonment, acts of war, and they could not and would not be recognized as a state of the United States, nor get aid. Hence why Utah became a state not long after the denouement of plural marriage. Also take a look at the fact that if man remarrys for what EVER reason he is still spiritually married to all the women.

Johnathan Jarrett

Actually, I think you should actually check more then just “Official Beliefs.” The Church continued to have Polygamous Marriage, after the fervor of anger against those that were performing it, had already died down. It wasn’t really much of an issue at the time. The Church had already weathered the “scandal,” and even the civil prosecution of the time. If the church had continued to have it, it would have been accepted. (Well, it was already being accepted by local and state Governments, as well as the Federal Government had given it an unofficial nod as accepted, especially as it was just something that “those crazy Mormons” were doing, and not even all of them were doing it. This was the political climate that the church was in when the determination was made to end Polygamous Marriage. So Cmbtvet, you may want to actually look more into the revised history that has been put out there by people that don’t understand that less then 10% of the church practiced Polygamous Marriage, and that was actually less then 4% of the polygamous marriages in the United States, of which some of the politicians of that time were into it. Isn’t it amazing what you can find if you actually look beyond what someone with an agenda will put out there?

just read the 19th wife, the beauty of polygamy and the history of it shines thru

MorganLaw

Cmbtvet, I actually had ancestors who were arrested for being in a polygamous marriage. The marriages were performed before the US declared it illegal, but they still ended up arrested (which is illegal, by the way).
Besides, haven’t you read the Official Declaration from Wilford Woodruff? He says quite plainly in there that if the Lord had commanded them to continue polygamous marriage, they would have done it. They did not change their stance because of what the government ordered; they changed it because of what the Lord commanded.

RachelM

Actually polygamous marriages were never technically legal. Not a single plural marriage had federally legal status. Bigamy was illegal long before JS started taking multiple wives. That is why the US govt had legitimate interest in seizing church property- because the church was openly defying federal law, and as a territory Utah was subject to federal law. The manifesto ended the outward defiance, if not the internal practice, and removed the final barriers toward statehood.

Idaho also banned polygamy in their state constitution and a lot of the arrests (including my great-great grandfather’s) were under that law. Those living in Cache Valley/ Bear Lake on the wrong side of the border were put in jail under that law.

The Lord put an end to it or the government would put an end to the Church. And no statehood.

Erik Kulick

The LDS church even denies members from entering their meetinghouses if they openly question doctrine or practices. They’re even willing to go as far as assaulting and trespassing those members to make examples of them.

These kinds of organizations need to stop holding themselves out as “places of public accommodation” or lose their tax exempt status if they insist on infringing on our right to assemble like this.

There’s a difference between what individuals do and what the Church advocates. I see individuals do things say things that are contrary to the teachings of the church but no one is assaulted or attacked. That was if true an isolated incident. You know why because people are people and sometimes we don’t act like the teachings we ascribe to. I bet you could equally find similar incidents of people of other faiths not just LDS.

Erik Kulick

The LDS church ordered these leaders to assault me and send me to jail. Fortunately, the DA gave me a notice of no action. IF it wasn’t the church ordering such heinous actions, they would have responded to my appeal of the improperly executed “court of love” or the follow-up letter I sent months after they failed to respond the first time.

Just because there are some parts of the world where religions are equally or more repressive, doesn’t justify all the Mormons sitting idly by as their leaders treat family like criminals just because they don’t agree with them.

Y’all should read this if you want to understand the issues surrounding Mormonism:

The church has shown its support for these men’s horrendous actions by refusing to interact with me at all ever since I was exed and I appealed the improperly held “court of love” and every meetinghouse I visit the cops are immediately called.

Erik, find a church that you agree with and that agrees with you. There are plenty.

Erik Kulick

So Cherilyn, do you believe that it was ever the will of deity for people to own slaves, let alone force them to marry their owners? I agree with my *fellow* Mormons and they agree with me on far more than you realize, but even if I didn’t that doesn’t warrant people forcing members out of their communities and families because of disagreement.

Quitiaray

If you are a baptized member you made covenants to keep the word of wisdom that’s in the discussions with the missionaries. Do you know that coming in. It may seem minor to those who don’t understand keeping covenants but apparently it’s important to the Lord. This is not the first time The Lord instituted dietary restrictions in the scriptures. Not is it the first time he created requirements for those who entered his temples. If someone had issues with the word of wisdom then they should pray and think hard before making the covenant of baptism. For those who struggle there is help. Believe it or not the church wants every member to be able to enter the temple. The Lord has set the standards for entry and those who desire these additional ordinances and teachings will make efforts to receive them.

greg scott

If you read the Book of Mormon you will find their were no requirements for temple attendance at all. Nor were there any required for the Kirtland temple.

vayapues

Um Matt… that is not the case at all. It is for profit, but it is still a church, backed by a church, and ran by a pastor.

It is a very common practice for nonprofits to run for profit entities, due to the red tape and paper work aspect.

To argue that church’s are not going to be required to perform same sex marriages is absurd.

It is exactly what is being forced upon these churches. Not next week, not next year, but today!!

Matt, you are the clearest voice in this whole discussion. But people gonna hear or believe what they want to hear and believe. Ain’t nothing doin.

Andy Hunter

Yes it is okay to discriminate against gays if the church is non-profit.
But hey, what do memberd have to pay to the Mormon church to enter the Temple and to be Sealed?
Yep, tithing, ie money and lots of it, 10% of annual income.
A very lucrative for profit business, eh?
And one that cannot discriminate according to US law.

Johnathan Jarrett

So, I have a question. You indicate that if someone has a belief that marriage should only be between man and wife, and that this is a religious belief, this is a discrimination against someone that is gay. However, couldn’t the opposite be said to be true as well? Isn’t discrimination against someone that believes that marriage should be between man and woman alone, to target them for ridicule and derision because of that belief? Or is this the whole racist thing all over again, where it is only someone that is white that can be racist? (And I HAVE had conversations with people of different skin pigmentation’s that told me that I was racist because I was white, no matter if I see individuals and the content of their character, And that they can’t be racist because they couldn’t affect my financial or political power, even though I have neither.)

The biggest thing you miss here, is something that has been missed by almost every person on one side or the other in this whole mess. That is, Marriage started out as a religious ceremony. It was predicated solely as a way to give validity to family, and make sure that there were clear roles for each person within the micro group created. The outside aspect of it became a way to secure familial relations, and tie families together. It was also a way to determine property disbursement should one or both of the persons die. However, in the beginning, it was a religious ceremony. The separation of church and state makes any non-profit religious group an autonomous one, and also makes it so that federal oversight is non-constitutional. The only reason why religions that gain a profit from their members, and pay their ministers to perform the ceremonies can be given Governmental Oversight, is because they are operating a business, not a religious belief system.

However, discrimination is not based upon someone that is the underdog. Instead, it is based upon the actions. And trying to force someone to do something, just because you want them too, and then trying to put political pressure on that group is nothing other then a form of discrimination. So, I hate to tell you this, but the ones that are being discriminated here, can be said to be BOTH sides. Some religions DO discriminate and place hate upon people that have “alternative lifestyles.” The Westboro Baptist Church is a good example. However, when a church accepts a “that is the way you wish to live, and I will pray for you and if you want to know more about us and our beliefs” without stating that someone is “going to hell,” it isn’t discrimination. It is however non-acceptance of a lifestyle.

One last point. There is absolutely nothing in the LDS Church’s standing that says that someone that is gay can’t be a member. Even a member in good standing. It says only that someone that is having sexual activities outside of marriage can’t be a member in good standing. Up till recently, that would mean that someone that is a practicing homosexual couldn’t be a “member in good standing.” As the stance of the church is that a union of marriage should be done for the purpose of having children, I DO expect the church to not recognize the Gay Marriage as valid within the aspect of the church. Two people that are of the same sex can not have a child without outside intervention. That being the case, the union couldn’t be for progeny either now, or in the future after death. As such, the idea of Eternal Marriage would be nullified. That means that it would in essence remove the continuation of family after death. So, it would go against the teachings of the church. Not because of some misguided stupidity of scriptural interpretation, but because of the whole purpose of eternal marriage.

Megan Kea Spark

Marriage started out as a religious ceremony? To which culture are you referring to? Many indigenous cultures have marriage but it is not religious… Marriage is a world wide cultural phenomenon and certainly not just something created by a religion. Here in Hawaii, “traditional” marriage included same sex marriages. If you look into many indigenous cultures , they live from a reality in which same sex attraction is viewed just as “normal” as opposite sex attraction. No big fuss over it..

I think the point is that it’s fine to believe whatever you want, beliefs don’t matter. The thing that bothers most people is not what someone believes about marriage, but what is the actual discrimation is the active striving to prevent same sex couples from marrying. Live and let live is what I live by, I
BTW, the Mormon church is ridiculous. It’s hard to see when you’re enmeshed in it (I was a member for 22 years). think it’s best to view reality objectively- your religion + culture. You don’t need religion to access the divine.

krys

“You don’t need religion to access the divine.” Maybe, but then why did Christ have his own formation of the church? Why did he teach them
principles to save, to prepare them for the kingdom of God? Why did he have apostles, temples, and why did they permit ordinances if it were for naught? Christ valued the temple, highly. There was spiritual significance to the house of the Lord. He knew it, He worshiped there, and the taught others to also. Just some food for thought.

Megan Kea Spark

Does the whole world believe in Christ ? Christ is one aspect of the divine, the way I see it the Christ-consciousness IS the divine, but there’s just different ways of seeing it or perceiving it through various cultures and religions. There are many paths to god, in my opinion. Christianity is just one of many options, and I think all the outward ordinances of it are simply symbolic in nature and are created for the human mind to have an outward expression of inner intentions. Look at the Hindus, or Buddhists- their whole religion is basically a technology created to access the divine and love. (Ie Metta meditation is a quick way to feel the spirit) and the Hindus have created a science of enlightenment and acknowledge the different paths one can take to reach it. I think the Mormon religion would be considered a Bhakti yoga, the yoga of devotion (devotion to Jesus Christ and performing acts of service). I think Jesus (if he existed) understood this and much of his language is symbolic. The temple Exists in all cultures, and I think it’s all more about inner intentions than that there is actual physical or eternal results from a physical action performed in our bodies.

FloridaPatriot

Jesus Christ clearly stated I am the truth the way and the Light and there is no other path to get to Heaven than by me. One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism. All these other world beliefs while they maybe well meaning are unable to redeem man from the fall. The reason many of these share several bits and similarities to The Church Jesus Christ established is because The True Church of God has always been on Earth from Adam on and many of these are ancient counterfeits of what was always the true church. That’s why they have Temples, holy days, similar practices, as their founders where trying to duplicate the True Church that they may have been physically separated from through distance, or may have had disputes or just rebelled and began their own churches because of pride, profit or need to feel closer to God or because of their natural inborn human need to try to commune with Deity. God in the old testament made it very clear to Moses and the Twelve Tribes of Israel that he was a jealous God and only he was to be worshipped. He said that any of those other people dwelling in the lands he had promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who practiced worshipping false Gods would be scattered and conquered by Israel if Israel remained faithful to him. Those other tribes and peoples would be destroyed by him by highly favoring Israel in battle because of their wickedness and worshipping Idols and false Gods.

Patti Sullivan Brasga Radovich

And what do they Do with all that money? Casinos? Brothels? NOOOO..we take care of the needy All Over the World! We build churches and temples. Feed, clothe, house, care for each other. Why don’t you go knock a group who doesn’t do anything of value for anyone?

Blanche Quizno

The Mormon Church donates less than 1% of its revenues to the needy. The amount is 0.7%. Shameful, considering its grotesque, gaudy, ostentatious, frivolous, tacky churches.

Lois Horan

These percentages are entirely made up. The church does not publish any information of the sort.

FloridaPatriot

That’s total BS and you know it. Being a member of the church I can tell you in my experience every single penny of the fast offerings are directed to the work of providing food and other necessities to the poor and families having financial difficulties. Tithing goes for The work of the Lord and this includes building and maintaining Temples, meetinghouses,Mission related expenses as well as all other expenses in the worldwide work of the church on behalf and direction of Jesus Christ. A large majority of LDS members are extremely generous in giving offerings and time for missions, natural disaster relief funds, genealogy libraries, perpetual education funds and too many others to list.

Quitiaray

Yes I do pay a full tithe in order to receive my temple recommend I also am faithful to my husband don’t rob lie or murder. I also have a testimony of Jesus Christ the book of Mormon, and the prophets of the church. I also try to do good to my fellowman. Oh and I practice the dietary guidelines the Lord prescribed. Basically I practice what I say I believe. I’m not a saint on Sunday and devil Mon through Sat. I’m a work in progress everyday. I don’t see the problem. It’s not a country club, it’s THE Lord’s temple, a sacred place. Everyone has acess to the Lord’s meetinghouse/chapel. There you are prepared to eventually go to the temple. Everything the church is about leads to the temple.

brittas

This was always the obvious work around for any church that currently mixes civil marriage with faith marriage rites. I do not think the lds church will be the only one to take this step and retain the right to set the criteria for those wishing to marry according to the rites of their chosen faith. To get ahead of the almost inevitable shift in law is smart . A few churches who provided adoption services ceased doing so in countries where equal rights laws superceded religious beliefs, this is the same thing really . I have been expecting it . Its a win win for all.

Sophia

So sad! As the only member in my family who was married in the Temple it was difficult, BUT such an amazing blessing and testimony to me and my family. THIS was important to be married for all eternity worth the sacrifice, the right way isnt always the easy way! Not to say it was not difficult it was but in the end I know it was the right way!

Gerald Gene Fuller

But this possible change will not in any way change the only way to be married for time and for all eternity.

Sephia8

Mormon religion! We’re ALL about families, . . . unless you aren’t Mormon, then F you! You can’t watch me get married! Only my “worthy” friends and family can. Otherwise you are lesser than the rest of us WORTHY temple goers. We’ll make you stand outside of the temple in shame until we are married.

Maybe next time you’ll join our cult so you can watch my kids get married . . . maybe.

Who cares if mom or dad aren’t Mormon (because the member was a convert), brought you into this world, took care of you, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to support you with things like clothes, food, shelter, insurance, summer camps, college, medical care and more. Mom & dad won’t be able to watch you get married because they are no longer “worthy” to watch their child get MARRIED!!

What a disgusting religion to do that to “families”.

Shame shame!

Steve Clyde

If you understood even the smallest tenets of our faith, you’d understand. But making snide comments about others’ beliefs is so much easier than actually studying, learning, or even putting up with a 20 minute discussion with the missionaries.

Grow up.

LB35

Sephia8’s comments are inexcusable. However, there really is no doctrinal reason for the 1 year wait policy. Many families have been hurt despite diligent study of our beliefs because they couldn’t be at the wedding of a child who converted while the long-time members got to see it done “the right way”. If the policy were to stay in place, how about telling your mom and dad to wait with your fiancé’s parents in the visitors center while you get married? A sealing only needs 5 people- the bride, groom, sealer, and two witnesses which can be temple workers. See how that feels to you, then maybe you will understand why so many
are praying for the policy to be changed.

Charlie Baldes

Boom! Steve you’re the man!

joseph peterson

Sophia, don’t be exclusive and ridiculous. The gospel is for everyone. Nothing about a civil marriage certificate changes the importance and significance of a temple sealing.

LB35

“The right way”? There is no difference in the eternities between getting married in a public ceremony and then going to the temple. It is the same place in the Celestial Kingdom regardless of when your sealing was performed. The blessings in this life are the same. What about the feelings of your family? Did your husband’s family wait in the parking lot with your parents? I hope the policy is changed. Lots of pain has been caused unnecessarily because of the 1 year wait policy and the “right way” mentality that many have taken. When I was a priesthood leader at a military base, I counseled recent converts to get married by the LDS chaplain then go to the temple as soon as possible, rather than to wait a year after getting baptized to get married. I did this in part because of the convert’s family. This to me was “the right way”. Now that I am part of a stake presidency, I would still give this council to bishops who have this issue come up.

Steve Clyde

The 1 year policy makes sense because new members will often not have the spiritual maturity or understanding that should be present before making such serious covenants. Without it, you would likely get some people coming in on fire with the gospel light only to burn out soon after, just like the people who get baptized and soon go inactive without the constant missionary support. Falling away after a temple endowment and sealing is a much more serious matter than falling away without it.

I see the year wait as a rite of passage: will you stick with it enough to show that you’re serious and ready for this big step? Condemnation is more severe for those who have made temple covenants then break them

Thad Gillespie

Then require a year of activity in the Church prior to a sealing, not a year of marriage prior to a sealing.

LB35

The one year policy for new converts to go to the temple is totally different from the one year policy to wait for sealing after a civil marriage. I understand the reason all converts must wait a year to get endowed. In the case I mentioned, a sailor got baptized and was planning to get married soon. If his fiancé had insisted on doing it “the right way”, they would have had to be engaged for over a year. Too much risk for a couple to be engaged that long and live the law of chastity. So I said get married when you have leave in a couple months, then go to the temple to be sealed a year after the chaplain marries you.

singchef

Wow, you could be me! Right with you!

Atticus

Alright, I’m just gonna ask what I’m sure others are thinking… sex after the civil wedding and before the temple sealing… is it allowed?

Buzzards

At least in France, that’s not a problem. But you also have or at least had, 72 hours to get there.

MsDinoGal

All we covenant in the temple, and learn/teach from Preach My Gospel, is that that we will only have sexual relations with our husbands or wives “to whom we are legally and lawfully wed.” That has nothing to do with a temple sealing. If you are married for 50 years, you can (at least as far as the Law of Chastity is concerned) be sealed at any time as long as you were faithful to one another.

Becca Riding

For the people that I know that were civilly wed in other countries and then sealed within a specific time period (it seemed to vary based on distance to a temple) then most of them did, indeed, consumate before the temple.

Swiftt

The reason for the current year long wait between civil wedding and temple sealing is to protect against the presumption that a couple got civilly married due to premarital sex or otherwise not being ready for direct temple marriage. If the policy becomes civil first then temple, then that presumption becomes moot.

LB35

I’ve heard a lot of theories about why the policy was instated in the first place, but not this one. The fact is that we don’t know why it was put in place- some people quote an old version of the Handbook that said something like- if you don’t think temple marriage is important enough to do instead of getting married in a public ceremony, you should have to wait until you prove you really do understand the importance of it by waiting a year. I’d like to actually see a copy of that version of the Handbook. Anyway, many who got married civially so family could attend or because one was a recent convert have said they shunned by people who did assume something happened prior to the marriage. We Mormons are great at judging others and not minding our own business.

MsDinoGal

You’re right, and I believe a lot of that stems from not really understanding the sealing ordinance and/or devaluing its eternal nature (as though a civil marriage makes any difference in the eternal perspective). That’s why I sort of envy members in other cultures were the phrase “temple wedding” doesn’t even exist. There’s a lot less pressure and judgement….

Swiftt

Perhaps I put it indelicately, but my intended meaning is along the same lines as yours. My phrase “otherwise not being ready” roughly equals your phrase “wait until you..understand the importance…” In the grand scheme of things, there is no difference between sexual indiscretion and not yet understanding the importance. Both mean further repentance is needed. I agree folks can strive to judge less, but the “shunned” can strive to avoid the snare of “at least I didn’t do THAT sin”.

Sophia

Yes as long as you are lawfully married, but I just read an article in the SLC tribuine saying this is false about the changing of the Temple marriage.

Firefly

Why wouldn’t it be allowed? You are married. Yes ~ You can have sex with your spouse and still be temple worthy. Having sex is only a problem when you have sex outside of marriage (either before marriage or an affair).

John Crane

I think it has a lot to do with marriage equality. The day may come when anybody who performs civil marriages in a state may be required to perform them for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Maybe not all states, but some. It appears that the church wants to get out of the marriage debate and is taking preemptive active to do so.

After all. states are still free to dictate the terms and conditions of marriage, just not WHO can be married. That is a constitutional right.

This will further emphasize what has always been: marriage is a civil contract, based in law, not in religion.

Shadrak

It will have to apply to all states. Civil rights can’t be selectively followed or enforced state to state.

Dale Wight

“This will further emphasize what has always been: marriage is a civil contract, based in law, not in religion.”

Going back to Roman times, historically, marriage originated as a civil contract. Churches came along and began merely blessing the relation, but the reality of the relationship originated with the state not the church.

Well, there was the whole apostasy thing, and the fact that Roman marriage rites evolved separately from Jewish rites. But, yes, until the Middle Ages when the church re-exerted control over marriage, it was a personal agreement between two people that could be legally enforced. Two consenting adults just had to hold hands and say they were married and that was it. They didn’t even need witnesses.
You can imagine what a headache that was when people decided they didn’t like the person they agreed to be married to, especially when they found someone else they liked more, and it became and issue of he-said, she-said over whether they were ever actually REALLY married or not. The medieval church stepped in and developed a ritual that hasn’t changed much over the last 600 years or so to try and get people to be more serious and solemn about what they were taking on when they got married, and, voila, fast forward to the modern day and people think that marriage has ALWAYS been under the confines of the church and that the government stepped in. The true history is a lot more messy than that.

KasiaJordanKelley

i dont think Adam and Eve were in he said she said kind of relationship

Dale Wight

But why go only part way back, to Roman times, to discuss “what always has been”? The OT and other records tell of marriages before then and — this being a thread about temple marriages — note that we learn in the temple and in the scriptures that marriage originated with God and Adam & Eve as a joining of religious import.

John Crane

Last time I checked, we, here in the US. are not operating on OT law, or sharia law, or anything like unto it.

Dale Wight

Puzzling: last time I checked we, here in the US, are not operating on Roman-times law or anything like unto it, but you used that to connect back to your comment that, “what has always been: marriage is a civil contract, based in law, not in religion.”

I used pre-Roman-times sources to show that marriage has existed before those times and that the first marriage was religious, as we see in the temple and in the OT — which was in answer to your “what has always been” statement. That was correcting your statement about history (“what has always been”) but did not say what “we, here in the US” are or are not operating [up]on. How did you see a linkage between those?

John Crane

You are not arguing with me. You are arguing with the church. Go pick your fight with them. They are the ones who decided to stop performing civil marriages. Go ask them why they decided to do it. Go ask them why they no longer insist that marriage is exclusively controlled by a church, if they ever did.

LB35

I don’t see how legalizing same sex marriage means every minister will have to perform marriages for anyone who asks. When has a doctor been forced to perform an abortion? Segrigation was done away with years ago, but country clubs and other private groups still have rules on who can join that are based on race, religion, gender etc. We still have the right of association and the Church would fight to keep its religious freedom.

MsDinoGal

This would be a good thing (and is the status quo for almost all members outside the US). I’ve seen engaged couples where one is a new member, or fiances who have “made a mistake,” decide to wait a year or more before getting married/sealed because they want a “temple wedding.” I believe with all my heart that a worthy sealing is worth waiting and working for, but in the meantime there is no need for cultural pressure to make a couple feel like they need to wait months to become “legally and lawfully wed” (which is what is required by the Law of Chastity) and play with fire. There is no doctrine that supports this idea of a “temple wedding.” A sealing is an eternal ordinance and something that not every couple is ready for at the time of marriage.

Devan Sisson

This is an interesting perspective. What brought you to see it this way? I would like to know for myself.

MsDinoGal

On my mission, helping many couples work through chastity issues, I came to understand how important it is to work line upon line, precept upon precept. Our first obligation should be to the covenants we make at baptism and in the temple. We never promise to remain abstinent until we can be sealed in the temple, but so many young people don’t understand this. Various circumstances make them feel like they must wait for years to become married, because they want to be sealed at the same time–which is an option not even available to many members worldwide. In the meantime, they make mistakes that wouldn’t have been mistakes if they were legally married. A sealing is not aa wedding and shouldn’t be treated as such. It’s a sacred covenant.

Devan Sisson

Thank you! what you are saying makes a lot of sense. I have often felt like there has been a precedent for shame if you are married outside of the temple. I want to be sealed in the temple but am not able to go right now. I am told often how “perfect” I am except for one thing, which is my ability to take them to the temple. Reading your comment has given me hope.

Again, Thank you!

MsDinoGal

You sound like you’ve got your head on straight. Keep the Lord close and you’ll know what to do. 😉

Guest

I don’t know. I sometimes feel like I’m way to radical to be a Mormon! 😉

Gerald Gene Fuller

But why is marriage not intended to be a sacred covenant? Anyone who has been endowed has made a covenant to obey the law of chastity as well.

Firefly

Marriage is a sacred covenant. It is the same if you are married in the temple or if you are married outside of the temple. The sealing is separate and most have forgotten this. They confuse the two covenants as one, but they are actually two. Both are sacred, and the sealing you can only get in the temple.

Johnathan Jarrett

An interesting thought to go along with this. Adam and Eve were married, but there is no indication that they were sealed. If they were, then that was not truly discussed in the scriptures. This would indicate that they are indeed two separate and distinct things.Also, as the Jews were not allowed to enter the temple unless they were the chosen, of which there was only a small handful, then it would indicate that most of the Jews, which has been stated time and again as being the people chosen of god, wouldn’t have had sealing for time and eternity. But they DID have marriage. And isn’t it the work of the church to be proxy for the dead and give them the option to have these blessings?

MsDinoGal

The New and Everlasting Covenant was revealed to Joseph Smith in the latter days.

greg scott

Yep, in D&C 22 ”

1 Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.

2 Wherefore,
although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.

Had nothing to do with polygamy.

greg scott

Anybody could go to the temples in Book of Mormon times.

Johnathan Jarrett

I have one problem with what you have said. That is this. Someone should not get married because they are concerned that they are going to “make a mistake.” I learned the hard way that this is not in anyone’s best interest. I loved her, however both of us have been married before. So considering that we knew what could happen, we chose to get married. This was a mistake. Instead, we should have abstained and seen where things would go. If we had, it would have shown that we both were willing to sacrifice to be with each other, and there wouldn’t be another statistic being made.

MsDinoGal

While I can understand why you might have interpreted my comment the way you did, I never wrote nor implied that couples should get married to avoid “making a mistake.” I don’t believe that at all. What I did say was that couples shouldn’t wait unnecessarily to get married because they want to be sealed at the same time and circumstances won’t permit it. Especially since civil marriage and temple sealings almost never occur simultaneously outside the US. Marriage and sealing are different; many forget this. That is what I intended.

Shadrak

I wonder if having the civil ceremony before the temple sealing was already on the table and the latest court rulings simply nudged the decision quicker, post of hastening the work. It seemed strange to have different policies in different parts of the world.

LB35

A Church spokesperson mentioned that it was being discussed earlier this year or last summer- can’t remember when exactly, but the SL Tribune did a story on it then.

I couldn’t get this page to load earlier, so I tried googling to see if I could get this information elsewhere. It turned up a lot of articles from February in various news papers about people talking about it maybe changing.

Patrick Lemon

If this is true it is because the LDS Church is not just run by just people but by men ispired of God. We believe in modern revelation and no believing “mormon” will turn his or her nose up at this policy change. the doctrines of the church have not changed, but the policies may change. If anyone wants to find out more about the LDS church please visit http://www.mormon.org.

Morris Thurston

It always amazes me how many people are convinced that legalizing same-sex marriages will lead to the Church being forced to perform them. I suppose it only points out how effective the Christian right has been in spreading such disinformation. Mike Peterson correctly distinguishes the Idaho case (which involves a for-profit wedding chapel) from anything the LDS Church would ever do. Forcing the Church to perform gay marriages in its temples has never happened and would never have happened. Every legal decision that has been handed down explicitly or implicitly acknowledges that it does not impact right of religions to choose who they will marry. Elder Oaks knows that and he has never claimed otherwise.

We were going to amend the post, but are locked out due to site traffic. 🙂

But you make important points. Gay marriage will not be forced in the temples. At worst, the Church just can’t marry people civilly anymore, but even that is in dispute with some of the language surround for-profit or non-profit religious institutions as they pertain to evolving marital law and civil liberties.

LB35

Right, just like no doctor loses his medical license for refusing to perform an abortion. And just because segregation was outlawed, that hasn’t stopped country clubs from having membership rules which exclude people based on race or religion or gender. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples of people still having their rights while other people have their rights too.

Karen Elliott

This is how my parents were married in 1968 before their sealing in the Salt Lake Temple. I remember my Mother telling me that since she and Daddy were traveling alone from Texas that they were allowed a civil marriage so they wouldn’t have the opportunity to “sin” while in transit.

Jtoro

Just one more example of why government should have nothing to do with marriage. No one should have to ask permission from the state or the government to get married. And why should marriage itself be the only favored manner that Americans enter into intimate and solemn relationships?

ans

I’m glad because my grandparents aren’t pleased that I am LDS since they are members of ‘another church’ and I’m not anymore because I don’t believe what they believe… to me it’s a cult life, and my grandparents just fumed when I told them that’s how I felt. If I get married again (was married to someone else) this time they can come be a part of my wedding instead of just one wedding that they’re not allowed to be at.

Adam

Whether or not you like Mormons or any Christian group, it is interesting to note that while this was a battle those in favor of the change in law said “This won’t affect YOUR marriage.”
Well, I guess it has affected theirs. Those who were looking forward to what they call a Temple marriage can put those hopes behind them. Did we really see it happening any other way? We said we wanted to let people choose the details of their marriage but there is no way the more vocal ones will let them continue to perform marriages if they don’t perform gay marriages.

Ellen Kowallis

According to LDS PR this information is incorrect.

BigMG

This sourced policy change appears more of a pivot. The only thing that would be redefined is the social aspect of these marriages. The
doctrinal boundaries would remain the same. Meaning, it would be an
ablative move which will provide better accommodations for everyone.
Unless somebody is looking for trouble.
Surely, both bride and groom will find ways to still make it memorable.

Skitenoir

Well, this would be an brilliantly smooth way to totally avoid the same-sex marriage religious land mine. If no bishops are allowed to perform civil ceremonies, and no civil weddings are allowed to be held on church properties, then the issue of whether or not a same-sex marriage can be performed by a Mormon Bishop or in a Mormon church (and whether permitting them to avoid the inevitable bad press and lawsuits would then be considered sanctioning them) will never, ever come up. Separating “sealings” from “legal marriage” will also allow them to say, why yes, we are following the law and recognize legal same-sex marriages as existing, and “sealings” are just something totally different. Separate from legal marriage, they’re a completely religious belief (are therefore protected,) and not at all related to “civil” matters. That is some Sun-tzu level politicking

So if everything in this article is accurate then the church is definitely being proactive against something that is coming down the pike.

AussieRagdoll

It’s not South Africa. The three countries where Temple Sealings are recognised as legal marriages are US, Canada & Australia.

Niklas

There are more than just three countries. Many European countries recognise temple marriages and in those countries one is required to either get married in the temple or wait for a year after a civil marriage to get sealed.

I’m pretty sure this is the case in the Philippines, too, but I may be wrong. I’ll ask around.

Debra Pym

It has only been in the last 30 years that stigma has been attached to marrying outside the temple and then being sealed. As the church grows there are more and more part member families. I welcome that now all families will be full participants in the joy of weddings and not made to feel unworthy to join in the most important day i the lives of their most dear ones.

This article contains an error. The third country which recognises the Temple Sealing as a legal marriage is Australia, not South Africa. You need a civil marriage in South Africa. As long as you give a month & one day’s notice to the government of your intention to marry, you have two adult witnesses & a legally licenced celebrant, your marriage is legal in Australia. All Sealers are legally licenced, all priesthood ordinances have two witnesses. So, Temple Sealings are legal here. That has been the situation ever since we opened our first Temple in Sydney, Australia in 1984. Prior to that time we were married civilly & then travelled to the New Zealand Temple to be sealed 3 days later.

Great and Marvelous are the workings of Our GOD! If this be what is coming, what a most wondrous way to thwart the Adversary,and to do it in a subtle way……We know that the purposes of Our Creator can not be overturned, and in the end He will be victorious, so no matter what the evil courts and laws of the land overturn the will of the people, and more importantly The Laws of God, they will not be superseded by wickedness and what is an abomination in Gods eyes! See the workings of God and marvel at his creativity and the leadership of His Church on the earth today I Thank Thee,O God for a Prophet to guide us in these Latter Days, and know that that soon this will all be over, and prepare for the onslaught that is coming, for we have crossed the Rubicon and there is no tuning back!!! FOLLOW THE BRETHREN MY DEAR BROTHER AND SISTERS and invite ALL to COME and PREPARE FOR the GREAT and DREADFUL DAY of THE LORD! I welcome that day and pray i be about His work on it……

Ray Sykes

In England (and I think Brazil) Temple marriage is not considered legal under current law so a civil wedding takes place in the morning and a Temple sealing in the afternoon. It works very well indeed and satisfies the non member families as well as the politicians and lawyers.

Zig

The current Mormon policy is deplorable and one of the most sickening policies I’ve ever seen come from an organized religion. To make things worse, those with power and money were granted exceptions (see Mitt Romney’s wedding). So the LDS church is getting a little more civil? It comes a hundred years too late.

I just confirmed that the temple sealing counts as the civil marriage in the Philippines, too. Seems like there’s quite a few areas where this is still the case. I wonder if the policy will change in those countries, too, or if the status quo will remain in place.

Istariken

This may have positive implications for church members who want to get married but aren’t sure if they’re committed enough to be sealed but conversely that could increase the number of children born who end up having divorced parents who decided they didn’t want to make the more long term commitment to be sealed. We’ll have I see how that plays out.
I believe the real reason for this change though is the same sex marriage controversy that will come to a church near you. If the federal government makes gay marriage legal and a church is morally opposed to it but the church actively engages in marriages, which also has a connection to the government, then the government or some other organization tho are proponents for gay marriage can put pressure on the church to either perform these marriages or lose their not for profit status. To be a not for profit organization, you can not engage in illegal activity. If you refuse to perform a legal ceremony for a gay couple, the church would be in direct conflict with federal law and jeapordize their status as a church and could be ordered by a judge to perform the ceremony or lose their status. I believe many people in the government see churches as big business anyway and wouldn’t mind getting their hands on those tax dollars. With this change, the lds church will avoid such conflicts but it is coming to others who don’t have this foresight.

joseph peterson

From another Facebook thread to keep in mind: “Canada has had marriage equality for a decade. Not one temple marriage has turned gay. YET…..”

Michelle

I think that if young people are chaste until they wed (civilly) then they are still worthy to be sealed in the temple and should not have to wait a year. It would be nice for all family members to be able to share in the joyous occasion of a marriage and then the couple can be sealed for all time and eternity afterward. That is the way things were done for a very long time and is still done in other parts of the world. It does leave ill feelings with family members that are excluded. I had to leave my husband (who I was sealed to) outside of the temple during our daughter’s wedding because he was struggling with his faith. I assure you that his not being able to see his daughter get married did not help matters any. It would have been lovely to have had a civil ceremony in the morning for Everyone to come to, followed by a sealing after. There is no doctrine that says they need to be an all in one kind of thing. There is definitely a difference in feeling the Spirit between a civil ceremony and a sealing so I don’t think that either one would take away from the other. I will pray for this change, also. I know it would mean a lot to my family in the future.

Spritequeen

Soooo…What I “hear” you saying is that you’re willing to spread news that’s nothing more than a rumor and get people all hyped up to increase your page ratings and bring unwarranted attention to yourself. Am I wrong? If you’re really caring about what your readers think, why not wait to pass this information IF/when it becomes ‘gospel truth’? This looks like the Mormon version of the Enquirer to me! LOL Lame!

Nephi Oliva.

It’s still better for churches NOT to marry civilly at all to avoid even being asked the question. If they don’t hold a license to do it, no one can ask. End of issue.

Joella

in the cathoic church if both arent cathoic they can say no to having the marriage performed

Preston Davis

The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints cannnot and will not be told that they have to change how they do marrieages by the federal government or the state government. The federal government and Utah state government have NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY on theis at all.

ldsmom02

Until the Church comes out and decides anything, speculation should be avoided. Remember that’s what President Hinckley said. It’s time to stop speculating and just live our lives. And, for those who engage in such, remember that uncivil discourse, as found in some posts here, is not helpful to a healthy dialogue about anything.

Patti Sullivan Brasga Radovich

Geoff Openshaw If I didn’t know any better I would say you have a problem with the church’s stance on gay marriage. I don’t like how this written at all. Are you a Prophet following member of the church or not? I ask sincerely

me

No, Mormon temples aren’t getting out of the marriage business!!!

It is a tad premature for Mormons to brace for a possible change in the LDS Church’s temple wedding policies, including Monday’s rampant Internet rumor that all members’ weddings would have to take place first outside a Mormon temple.

“Church leaders are well aware of the issues surrounding marriage and continue to examine them carefully,” LDS Church spokesman Dale Jones said Monday in a statement, “but we are unaware of any meetings where changes to temple marriage policies have been discussed.”Some Facebook posters speculated the move was imminent, claiming that the issue was addressed at recent meetings of LDS temple workers in Bountiful and Rexburg, Idaho. UNTRUE!!

Reading this, on the heals of the Church releasing four essays re: plural marriage, I found this little snippet:

“In the face of these measures, Latter-day Saints maintained that plural marriage was a religious principle protected under the U.S. Constitution. The Church mounted a vigorous legal defense all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court ruled against the Latter-day Saints: religious belief was protected by law, religious practice was not. According to the court’s opinion, marriage was a civil contract regulated by the state. Monogamy was the only form of marriage sanctioned by the state.”

The Church has been here before and I believe you are correct in saying the Church wants to get out in front of this before being forced into any position.

Paul

Some pastors in Idaho are facing fines and jail time for refusing to marry gay couples.

Jane1213

The room in the temple for weddings doesn’t look like anything more than a typical room at the local courthouse for civil ceremonies. If that is all getting married in the temple is (with the nonsense restrictions) I’d take the courthouse any day.

KasiaJordanKelley

i dont know which temple looked like a courthouse, i was married in Provo temple and have seen sealing rooms in others and i would always choose the temple sealing room, their warmth and simple elegance over cold, government courthouse

Stevo

My wife and I were married 7 years ago civally. I was not active at the time and had decided I did not want to be. My wife was raised in a Mormon family, and I was not. However I had joined the Church in 1997. I met my wife in 2001 long after I had fallen away from the church. Anyway, to make a long story short, I come from a completely non- LDS family. So when We got married it was nice to have it where my family could attend to. About 5 years ago my wife and I became active, got our acts together and were sealed in March 2014. I don’t regret having our marriage civilly first. I hope my children will do the same as it has been the tradition throughout my family.

Robert Spencer

What is the source for this article?

mel

Hehe, I was going to comment, but then I saw all the hate and contention and thought leave it be. Although, it is an interesting concept. I don’t care if you’re LDS or not, or if you think it’s a cult or not. Think about it. You used to be able to “one and done” your marriage ceremony, and that’s what you’ve been preparing for your whole life. IF anything were to change that ideal, it would come as a huge shock, no? ((News flash, by definition, all religions and society based activities are cults. Humans and nature don’t fit in our pretty lines that we draw so darkly. Look at the platapus. And the Gibbon. Bats. The tree that grows in my backyard that looks like a maple, but is actually an oak. Open minds see a lot more beauty and don’t necessarily need to know the technicalities. Please be respectful and charitable as I’m sure all religious doctrine and good upbringing teaches.))

Good luck with this approach. Groups such as Affirmation LDS and Mormons Building Bridges that are strategically infiltrating the LDS Church are not going to be satisfied with a civil marriage. They will demand the sealing as well. We stood with the Houston Five last week and it was incredible to see their passion and their willingness to give their lives for their religious liberty.

mstockinger

The entire blog post is without merit. No such policy is under consideration in the U.S. In other parts of the world, ordained ministers cannot function as agents of the state, thus requiring a registration of a marriage by civil authority. Marriage ceremonies are performed separately. Regardless of government policy, LDS church policy is that only those possessing a valid “recommend” (recommendation) can attend temple sealings (weddings) at any temple anywhere in the world.

James Humberg

It is sad that the complacent’s in Utah and throughout the world as a whole, let the LGBT camel into the Bedouin’s tent, by not standing for something, and saying “NO” ! I actually believe that these ignorant people think that GAYs are just men and women, who like to have fun, wear bright clothes, hold hands and kiss! WRONG!
Watch the movie, “And the Band Played On” It is about the search for the causative factor that lead to the GAY Cancer back in the Reagan Presidency of the 1980’s. One GAY Male spread AIDS to over 2,000 partners in one year. Back in the 1950’s if you had a contagious disease you were quaranteed…Now they have free reign to spread their filth with impunity ANALLY, and with dirty needles! This will not be allowed to be in this forum because I am not politically correct, but besides that, Obama is one of the biggest contributors to this PLAGUE!
They are dirty, perverted individuals with no morals, and besides that they are predacious! They will think nothing of grooming boys and girls, if not raping them outright, and trying to make them follow in their footsteps! And if you are proud to be GAY, here is your legacy…AIDS and STD’s! Now there is something to share and share a lot!
I was threatened with RAPE by a Bi-sexual R.M. back in the 70’s! If I didn’t threaten to kill him over this threat, he would have attempted to carry out this heinous act! He messed with the wrong Veteran! And YES! I would have Killed him! I am not a Homophobe! I just hate the SOB’s
This discussion has nothing to do with marriage, but the perpetuation of morality, and the obliteration of Homosexuality’s perversion at it’s roots!